Burdick v Garrick: HL 1870

In the courts of Chancery, the statute of limitations would not apply when the person in a confidential relationship had got the property into his hands. A court presumes against the party against whom relief is sought that he has made that profit from the misapplied money which persons ordinarily do make in trade: ‘the court does not proceed against an accounting party by way of punishing him for making use of the plaintiff’s money by directing rests, or payment of compound interest, but proceeds upon this principle, either that he has made, or has put himself into such a position as that he is to be presumed to have made, 5 per cent., or compound interest, as the case may be’.


Lord Hatherley LC


(1870) LR 5 Ch App 233


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWestdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council HL 22-May-1996
Simple interest only on rate swap damages
The bank had paid money to the local authority under a contract which turned out to be ultra vires and void. The question was whether, in addition to ordering the repayment of the money to the bank on unjust enrichment principles, the court could . .
CitedNocton v Lord Ashburton HL 19-Jun-1914
The defendant solicitor had persuaded his client to release a charge, thus advancing the solicitor’s own subsequent charge on the same property. The action was started in the Chancery Division of the High Court. The statement of claim alleged fraud . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 11 February 2022; Ref: scu.194033